BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.445 of 2014

Date of Instt. 19.12.2014

Date of Decision :26.05.2015

Kashmir Singh Sandhar son of Mohan Singh R/o 66, Sleightholme Cres, Brampton, Ontario, L6P3E7 Canada through his special attorney Karam Singh Son of Ajit Singh.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd, Ramon House, H.T.Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Mumbai-400020.

2. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co.Ltd, 1st and 2nd Floor, Gupta Chambers, Civil Lines, Opp.NRI Sabha, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Sh.Amit Sekhri Adv., counsel for complainant.

Sh.Nipun Bajaj Adv., counsel for opposite parties.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant obtained one unit linked pension plus plan of the opposite party No.1 bearing policy No.11440441 dated 12.12.2007 from the opposite party No.2 after making the first premium payment of Rs.13 Lacs. The complainant was told by the opposite party No.2 that after the payment of first premium the complainant has to pay only Rs.10,000/- per annum as subsequent premiums for next two years for the continuation of the policy. The complainant is a NRI and due to is non-availability in India could not make the payment of 1st premium but the complainant made a payment of Rs.20,000/- on 2.9.2009 and a renewal premium receipt for Rs.20,000/- was issued to the complainant on 2.9.2009 by the opposite party. The complainant then came to India in year 2011 and was shocked to know that his policy has lapsed in 2010 by the opposite parties even though no intimation in this regard was received by the complainant. The complainant was told by the opposite party No.2 that his policy will be reinstated on making payment of Rs.10,000/-. The complainant made a payment of Rs.10,000/- and a renewal premium receipt dated 23.9.2011 was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties. In the year 2012 the complainant faced similar circumstances when on his visit to the opposite party No.2 he was told that his policy has again auto lapsed. The complainant was again asked to make the payment of Rs.10,000/- for reinstating the policy. The complainant made a payment of Rs.10,000/- as per the assurance of the opposite party No.2 and he was even issued a receipt dated 18.10.2012 by the opposite party. The complainant was under an honest belief that his policy has been reinstated after the receipt of Rs.10,000/- on 18.10.2012. However, the complainant on his visit to opposite party No.2 in January, 2014 was stunned to know that his policy has again been lapsed by the opposite party inspite of receipt of Rs.10,000/- as premium. Even as per the clauses of the policy, a policy can be revived any time during the period of five years from the due date of the earliest outstanding premium. So the policy of the complainant has been wrongly lapsed by the opposite parties in contravention of the terms of the policy. On such like averments the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to reinstate his policy from the date of auto lapse with NAV applicable on that date. He has prayed in the alternative that opposite parties be directed to refund the total premium amount alongwith interest. He has also claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability etc. They further pleaded that the complainant Kasmir Singh "Life Assured" (hereinafter referred to as LA) had submitted to the answering opposite parties, a proposal/application dated 4.12.2007 for the purchase of HDFC Unit Linked Pension Plus Plan, the proposal was accepted on the standard rates based on the information provided by the LA and consequently a policy was issued bearing policy No.11440441 dated 9.12.2007 and the same commenced on 9.12.2007. The present complaint is an afterthought and was only been filed with the ulterior motive to harass and humiliate the opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special costs. It is pertinent to mention that the complainant in the present complaint has specifically admitted the factum of receipt of policy documents in the complaint, therefore, he can not now wriggle out of the terms and conditions of the policy. It is worthwhile to submit that the complainant is an educated person and had singed the proposal form in English and also from time to time he has changed the investment options from one fund to another. In the proposal form he has proposed to invest his premium i.e 50% in the balanced manage fund and 50% in growth fund and later on by an application dated 22.3.2010 he requested for fund switch and premium redirection directing the opposite party to invest 20% of the premium in balanced managed fund II and 80% of the growth fund II. Moreover, he paid the first premium of Rs.13 Lacs by way of bank drafts bearing No.268, 269486 and 269487 dated 1.12.2007 drawn in SBI with the object of saving. It is further submitted that Rs.12,89,000/- was paid vide three demand drafts and Rs.11,000/- was paid in cash by way of first premium. The complainant has filed the present complaint before this Forum when the policy has already attained paid up status due to non receipt of the renewal premiums on time which were due from 9.12.2011. In a paid up policy, if the value of the accumulated units goes below the minimum paid up vale as specified in the policy schedule, then the policy gets canceled. In a paid up canceled policy, the Net Asset Value (NAV) as on the date of cancellation is paid to the policy holder, hence, the complainant has already taken all the benefits of the policy for the period from which he had paid the premium. When once the complainant has utilized the policy for which he had given the premium, he has no legal right to claim the refund and damages except the fund value of the policy. They further pleaded that the policy purchased by complainant is a Unit Linked Policy i.e HDFC Unit Linked Pension Plus Plan, which are chosen for earning more profits and gains through speculative transactions. It has also been admitted by the complainant in para Nos.1 & 2 of the complaint that he purchased Unit Linked Policy. Since, the policy & transactions in question are definitely commercial in nature, therefore, complaint do not fall under the definition of a consumer. They denied other material averments of the complainant.

3. In support of his complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CA alongwith copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed evidence

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for opposite parties has tendered affidavit Ex.OP/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP10 and closed evidence.

5. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.

6. Without going into the merits of the controversy, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that complainant had obtained a Unit Linked Policy which is speculative in nature. Ex.OP2 is proposal form and in the tile of the proposal forum, it is specifically mentioned in bold letter "Unit Linked Policy Form". Investment in unit linked policy is subject to market risk. It is speculative in nature and can not be enforced by the consumer fora. In Ram Lal Aggarwalla Vs Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co.Ltd & Ors, Revision Petition No.658 of 2012 decided on 23.4.2013 by Hon'ble Nationa Commission it has been held as under:-

The District Forum observed that admittedly the complainant is an advocate having vast experience and is also a Notary. His wife Tarini Agrawal was the recognized agent of the insurance company. In such circumstances, the allegation of fraud being practiced on him in the matter of issuance of policy is totally unacceptable. The Forum also observed that the policy having been taken for investment of the premium amount in the share market, which is for speculative gain, the complaint did not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this connection, the Forum placed reliance on the decision of this commission in the case of Smt.Abanti Kumar Sahoo Vs. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Ltd, (FA No.162 of 2010).

After hearing the complainant, who argued the matter on admission personally, and going through the relevant documents available in the LCR, we see no reason to differ from the finding recorded by the learned District Forum. Accordingly, we reject the appeal memo at the admission stage".

7. Further in Paramjit Kaur Vs. Aviva Life Insurance Company India Limited, Consumer Complaint No.96 of 2011 decided by our own Hon'ble State Commission on 4.7.2014 and Metlife India Insurance Company Vs. Gurjit Singh, First Appeal No.407 of 2011 decided on 22.9.2014, relying on the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission in Ram Lal Aggarwalla case (Supra), it has been held that in respect of unit linked insurance policy, the consumer complaint is not maintainable under the Act because the money is invested in speculative busniess. The ratio of the above authorities is applicable on the facts of the present complaint.

8. In view of above discussion, we held that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and is dismissed as such. However complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate court or forum. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

26.5.2015 Member Member President